Due date: Friday 8 August, via e-mail before lecture
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
Write a question in the style of Thomas Aquinas (with objections, your response, and the replies to the objections) on the topic of whether it is ever just to go to war. If you disagree with Aquinas, the objections to your response should come from Aquinas’ arguments; if you agree with Aquinas, the objections should come from Erasmus's arguments. Your own response need not draw on either Aquinas or Erasmus, though it can make reference to their arguments. For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
Is it possible to argue for just war (or for pacifism) without drawing on Christian presuppositions? Discuss either Erasmus' or Aquinas' arguments about the justice of war and determine whether or not they are good arguments if we do not accept Christian doctrine. Can they be modified in ways that make them independent of Christianity? For a fuller discussion of this essay topic, see here.
Evaluate the usefulness of just war theory. Is just war theory merely an attempt to rationalize ex post all manner of crimes, as Erasmus argues? Or is just war theory necessary for regulating an ineradicable practice? Examine the arguments of Vitoria on the justice of making war on the Indians of the Americas to make your case. For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
Do Vitoria’s arguments about the possible titles to rule of the Spanish in America legitimize the Spanish conquest of the Americas or condemn it? Under what conditions would they legitimize/delegitimize it? Would they have justified European settlement of New Zealand? Why or why not? You may present your response in the form of a question (like Vitoria’s), with objections, your response, and replies to the objections. For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
Write a question in the style of Thomas Aquinas (with objections, your response, and the replies to the objections) on the topic of whether a particular war (e.g., the Iraq war) or a particular episode in a war (e.g., the firebombing of Dresden) is just. Draw on arguments from Aquinas, Erasmus, and Vitoria. For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
Thomas Aquinas was born in late 1224 in Aquino, Italy to a wealthy family. He studied with the Benedictines of Monte Cassino, and at the University of Naples. Later he entered the Dominican order of mendicant friars (1244). He family were deeply opposed and it is said his brothers kidnapped him and kept him a prisoner in the family castle for over a year until they finally relented. In 1252 he went to Paris where he taught until in 1258. He stopped teaching in Paris as the pope asked him to teach in several areas in Italy. St. Thomas Aquinas was born in late 1224 in Aquino, Italy to a wealthy family.
He died on his way to defend the papal cause at the Council of Lyon in 1274. He was later canonized in 1323.
In his life time he had great "intellectual authority" in the Church. To this day teachings of the Catholic Church are known as 'Thomism' In his philosophical writings he tried to combine and reconcile Aristotle's scientific rationalism with the Christian faith and the doctrine of revelation.
His two most famous works are The Summa contra Gentiles, which explored "natural religion" and Summa theologiae, which he did not complete.
(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
What things are necessary for a war to be just?
"The authority of the sovereign under whose command the war is to be waged." Private individuals ought not have the ability to declare war:
Grievances of private individuals ought never be the justification for war - they have other forums in which such grievances can be redressed (eg tribunals)
Private individuals do not have the ability to summon together the people, which is necessary in war time.
It is the job of ruling authorities to protect the well being of the state they have control over. In the same manner that these authorities use their power to enforce laws inside the state, they must be the ones to declare war against a foreign threat.
A just cause is required to declare war. According to Aquinas, this cause must avenge some wrong caused by a state or inflict a necessary punishment; the state must have a compelling fault which justifies the attack. What sorts of things might count as compelling faults for Aquinas? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008 An example of a fault could be a breach of a treaty.
A rightful intention which advances good or stops evil. Rightful motivations include the spread of peace, punishing evil, and coming to aid of the innocent. Unjust intentions such as cruelty, the desire to secure power, and oppression of the innocent result in unjust wars.
Would those conditions be present in contemporary cases (e.g., Iraq) according to Aquinas?
First requirement: "The authority of the sovereign under whose command the war is to be waged."
There is some controversy over whether this requirement is met or not. The question revolves around who really was able to give authority to the US to go to Iraq:
If George Bush, as the president, or congress as a representation of the people generally, were able to give such authority, the requirement would be met.
However, given the overarching obligations of the United States given its voluntary subscription to the United Nations and the international law principles it endorses (including that military force can only occur if ratified by the security council), it is possible that the above authorities no longer had the authority, having previously given it away. The decision of the UN not to become involved in Iraq therefore may have precluded the first requirement being fulfilled, even though prima facie, it appears that the correct public authority was gained.
It could be argued that the second condition is met because George W Bush had intelligence that confirmed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction Is this a fault deserving of punishment, in Aquinas' theory? Threat does not seem to be itself a fault - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008. Subsequently the accuracy of the intelligence was found lacking because Weapons of Mass Destruction were not found. He had another just cause to declare war on Iraq. He believed that Saddam Hussein was fomenting instability in an area that had considerable political and economic significance in the rest of the world that could have resulted in escalating conflict in the Middle East Fomenting instability again does not necessarily seem like a fault that deserves punishment, or would it be one, according to Aquinas? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008.
The clarity of George W Bush intentions is debatable. Saddam Hussein was oppressing the majority and repressing all dissent using torture and murder. So it could be argued that he was coming to the aid of the oppressed and punishing the evil.
It is likely that in modern day cases that these conditions would be present. All modern day states have some sort of sovereign authority (or bound to a sovereign authority like the UN), so can fulfill this first requirement. However the likelihood that a just cause and right intention could even be conceived of is debatable. Such a morally charged question would be viewed as relative to different interest, peoples and states. However when a nation perceives of a just cause (as appeared to be the case post 9/11 in the war on terror) then that condition can be fulfilled.
Are there any cases of "just war" in the modern world, if we follow Aquinas' criteria?
Aquinas' theory can justify many wars in theory, but in practice the implementation is not so clear-cut. His criteria lend themselves to broad interpretation, as all three principles (authority, cause and intention) lend themselves to endless debate. This is why Erasmus was critical of Aquinas' theory on the justification of war. He thought that because the definitions of a just war were too loose- then any war could be twisted to fit within those definitions. Thus a variety of modern war could be considered just depending on how loose we are with definitions. Two prominent examples are Iran and Sudan.
An invasion of Iran would be justified by Aquinas if it were able to be shown that they truly posed an imminent threat to Middle-Eastern security Again, I'm not sure if "threat" really falls within the category of things that justify war, though I can be persuaded - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008 and if the intention of the invasion was to stabilise the region. However both these assertions are highly contentious. It is unlikely that Iran would attack countries like Israel without provocation and an invasion will invariably be tainted with accusations of trying to secure Iranian oil in light of global energy security. In Sudan the genocide seems to provide a more clear cut justification for war. Again though, the intentions of the invading army will be questioned, especially in light of the history of western imperialism in Africa and the abject state of many post-conflict nations which went through similar struggles in the region.
Is the requirement of "just cause" identical with the idea that a country may only wage war in self-defense? * What would it mean for a belligerent to have a "rightful intention"? Is this condition of just war workable in modern circumstances?
A just cause is more than self defense. It is punishing a country for doing wrong. Examples? Note that this seems to conflict with things said above on the question of whether the Iraq war is just - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008
A rightful intention means that one goes to war to advance good or avoid evil. How is this shown? How do we tell what the intention of the US, e.g., is in Iraq? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008
How does Aquinas reconcile war with the apparent teaching of the gospel? What would Erasmus say to this?
Aquinas uses a justification from St Augustine: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Luke 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."
War, then, is justified in at least some instances, particularly where it is fought aimed at peace: "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace."
Where an unjust (or sinful) war is committed, Aquinas argues that the perpetrators comeuppance will come in the end, "because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword."
Erasmus, on the other hand, argues that the only conclusion a good Christian would arrive at would be not to go war, even where peace is the aim of war - for in the end, war leads only to more war, not to peace. On the contrary, an unjust peace is preferable to a just war.
Aquinas argues that their must exist peace in ones warring. I would interpret this to refer to the the idea that the Christian religion itself is peace, and that in war one should also be striving to bring that peace to others. Aquinas quotes the bible, "Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34)". Erasmus argues that even if peace is the objective of a war- any good Christian would realise that war is never just.
Can a soldier kill innocents in war when following orders?
Aquinas believes that there are three principles to be observed in war. The first is the principle of the Innocent Immunity Citations - the principle is actually not quite found in Aquinas - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008. This basically says that those who are not fighting, participating, or contributing to the war are safe on home base Is this what Aquinas means by an innocent? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008. If you are fighting, justice is still in effect to not harm the innocent. A problem here is that how do you decide if someone is innocent or masking there participation to the cause.
The second, clashing with the first, seems to be a loop hole in the rule you just set up. The Doctrine of Double Effect says that yes we should protect the innocent but sometimes innocent people die. As a soldier it is your job to not target civilians, but if the terrorists are being cowards and hiding behind the innocent then a bomb will kill both of them. So long as your intentions were to not harm the innocent, then you are safe and protected under this double doctrine.
The final and third principle is the Rule of Proportionality. This says that, yes, you should protect the innocent. Yes, you might kill innocent when laying down fire against the enemy. Do your ends balance out your means of acquiring those ends? This principle states that you should try to minimize the innocents you kill. Instead of dropping all of your bombs on the terrorists, who cower behind the innocent, you should drop only one....and it should be small. The problem that still arises from all of this is that these actions require morals on behalf of the soldiers and those in war. Whose intentions are we to trust? Not sure what the last question points to - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008
Could Aquinas reconcile the idea that we ought not to kill innocent individuals with the fact that most soldiers in modern wars do not choose to go to war (but are rather drafted or coerced into war)? Are only "civilians" innocent in war, according to Aquinas?
What is the doctrine of double effect? How does it apply in war? Is it found in Aquinas?
The doctrine of double effect is defined as an action taken in warfare when there is knowledge that the effect of such an action impacts on people uninvolved in such warfare. An example of such an action includes the killing of innocent people or non-combatants in an act of war. Such an action can be justified if the nature of the act is morally impartial, if the actor means good, or if the good effect outweighs the bad effect.
This theory is applied in war when it is inevitable that civilians are harmed to weaken the enemy. It can be justified when the agent considers it advantageous to harm the enemy despite the possibility of harming civilians with the same action.
It is believed that Aquinas first thought of this doctrine of double effect. It emerges in his theory of 'Just War'. Citations - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008
The doctrine of double effect would outlaw cluster munitions especially if those weapons were employed in predominantly civilian areas - southern Lebanese villages. Further explanation needed - why? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008
The doctrine of double effect can still be applied to modern warfare in much the same way it way applied in Aquinas' time. Because the DDE allows for non-combatant casualties to be sustained during warfare as long as they are not purposely targeted. If it was seen that targeting an enemy that takes shelter behind civilians would create proportionally more good than it would evil then it would be acceptable under the DDE. The same can be said for cluster munitions, as long as civilians are not being purposely targeted and more good would be achieved than evil.
The Geneva Conventions on warfare explicitly oppose the targeting of civilians and does provide a modern guideline on how to wage war. Do Aquinas' just war concepts underlie the Geneva conventions?
Aquinas underlie similar concepts off just war to the Geneva Conventions. Aquinas shows that 'just war' has the principle that innocent have immunity. Innocent meaning civilians in the Geneva Convention. However, Aquinas then goes on to the fact that there are differences to the underlying message to 'just war', these are the doctrine of double effect (kill innocent, you get it back), and God determines the Justice of war not humans. So in theory Aquinas has a bit of both sides to the underlying 'just of war' that to the Geneva Convention.
Which features of Aquinas' theory of "just war" are intentionalist, and which are consequentialist? Can Aquinas be said to lean more towards either of these ethical approaches?
Miller, Richard B. "Aquinas and the Presumption against Killing and War." The Journal of Religion, Vol. 82, No. 2. (Apr., 2002), pp. 173-204. Link.
Brock, Gillian. "Humanitarian Intervention: Closing the Gap Between Theory and Practice" Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 23, No. 3. (2006), pp. 277-191. Link
Logan, Justin. "The Bottom Line on Iran: The Costs and Benefits of Preventive War versus Deterrence" Policy Analysis, No. 583. (Dec. 4, 2006), pp. 1-27. Link
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus was born in either 1466 or 1469. He was a Dutch humanist and theologian. Early in life he studied at the Brethren of the Common Life, which practised a form of Christianity that was different to that of the Church. It was different because it did not feel that the ornament, ceremony or hireachy common in catholicism were important. The main focus was placed on education and the study of religious literature. It is said that the values he learnt at the Brethren shaped his later beliefs. When his parents died he joined a monastery but grew to resent their practises. After this he studied religion at the University of Paris which fuled his frustrations with Scholasticism - which is the attempt to reconcile Christian theology with Greek philosophy.
Many of his writings used humor and satire to convey his opinions on religion and society. He also pushed for the Bible to be translated into local languages so that more people could access it's teachings. It is said that Erasmus was very liberal for his time and had quite modern views for instance; he felt that women should be educated and minorities accepted. He is said to be one of the first Westen pacifists and was more or less opposed to war. While he criticized the Catholic church he still believed in the Catholic idea of Free Will and so, although Protestant Reformers of the time looked to him as a critic of the Church, they were not pleased by his continuing belief in Free Will as it was in direct opposition to the Protestant view of predestination.
Erasmus starts his writing with the quote “dulce bellum inexpertis – war is sweet to those who have not tried it”. He cites this phrase from Vegetius to explain that going to war seems not to be big “thing”, for those who hasn’t experienced war, but those who have been to war know that “thing war; there is nothing more wicked, more disastrous, more widely destructive…in a word unworthy of man” (p. 222).
With astonishment Erasmus acknowledges that “everywhere at the present time war is being entered upon lightly, for any kind of reason…” (p.222) not by young and inexperienced, but by old who know it well, not “only by lay people but by priest and bishops”, not by common people but rather by princes. Erasmus complains about the fact, that men, “a peaceful creature, whom nature made for peace and loving-kindness, should rush with such savage insanity, with much mad commotion, to mutual slaughter” (p.222).
Erasmus then goes on and tries to explain the historic reasons for men for the act of killing. He thinks hunters in pre-history who killed animals, where the “first murders”. He writes that over time through killing/hunting several animals (first harmful beasts, then harmless, then sheep, domestic ox, birds, fish…) men got used of the act of killing and hunting had given men the skills for killing, which they - at one time used - to kill other men, first one against one, “then people began to band themselves together, according to kinship, neighbourhood, or friendly alliance” (p.223), and invented arms to make wars (“bellum”). This foul evolution went on to the point that “we are continually at war, race against race, kingdom against kingdom, prince against prince…and at this very worst of all, Christians fight Christians” (pp. 224-225). Erasmus complains that no one is astonished and he adds that the worst of all is that both sides in a war often argue that they act in the name of the Christ.
Erasmus tries to argue how this evolution among Christians could happen. In his opinion the main reason is a gradual estrangement of the church from the original doctrines of Christ (including the acceptance of Aristotle as an integral part of theology). He specifies the different aberrations in the church (taking over the Roman law, misunderstandings of the later writings in the Gospel, injustice, acceptance of different “trivial” reasons to approve wars…).
(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
What does Erasmus think about just war reasoning as practiced by people like Aquinas?
Codified principles of just war such as those that Aquinas offers, don't necessarily lead to fewer wars being fought more fairly. Instead, it gives individuals the tools to rationalise their actions, both in deciding to go war and in the conduct of the war. A prince 'can buy their justification' from any number of sophistic lawyers and theologians. Even though there may in fact be just wars, attempting to elaborate what exactly constitutes one simply will allow any number of unjust wars to be perpetrated in apparent adherence to these principles.
Erasmus' project is more rhetorical. By vehemently presenting the horrors and dehumanising effects of war, he hopes to prime our intuitions such that we instinctively have a revulsion to organised violence. If humanity adopts the view that war is bad by default, then this will be a more effective way to reduce the amount of warfare, if that is indeed our goal.
How does Erasmus' view of man compare with Augustine's?
Why does meat eating lead necessarily to war, according to Erasmus?
According to Erasmus, 'Vice [violence] is like the sea, we have the power to shut it out altogether, but once we let it in, there are few of us that can impose a limit'. Erasmus identifies the killing of animals as the initial factor giving rise to the temptation for men to begin killing other men. Slaughtering animals for meat gave men practice in killing and led them to discover that other men could be killed as easily. Furthermore, men were more likely to use deadly force when they became upset with another man if they have conditioned themselves to killing animals who offer no provocation. This leads to a slippery slope effect where the level of violence continues to escalate; men fashion arms to kill more effectively, band together to attack other bands, eventually leading to entire communities at 'war'.
What is the point of the argument about animals in Erasmus' presentation?
One of the reasons Erasmus uses animals is as a metaphor for innocent civilians - creating links through using similar language - e.g. "committed no other crime than to be eatable" p223 (cf, "innocent people who have done no wrong") p227 ; domestic ox who "kept the ungrateful family for so long with its labours" p223 (cf. "peasants" - who carry out the same function in society p227). If it is wrong to kill innocent animals, it flows on that the same or similar arguments apply to innocent human beings.
Moreover, Erasmus uses animals as the 'step' just below humans, showing the ease with which moral and ethical standards can change. If "habit" can make it "possible...not to see the savagery" of such treatment of innocent animals, where it was once considered to be an evil, the same can apply to human beings. "Little by little...evil... f[inds] acceptance with the heedless." p225
What is the fundamental problem with war?
Is Erasmus' wrath directed only at aggressive war, or does he condemn too wars undertaken for the sake of defending one's country?
Does Erasmus' pacifism leave "appeasement" as the only option available to a "prince"? Is Erasmus naive?
Can "holy wars" exist for Erasmus? How does he compare to Aquinas on this point (see, e.g., Summa Theologica II-II.11.3, II-II.40.2)?
Erasmus
It is unlikely that Erasmus would accept the idea of a ‘holy war’ as a just war, particularly given that under his ethic, a good Christian people (and Prince) would choose to be ruled unjustly than to defend themselves. As a result, it is unlikely he would condone a war committed to defend the very principles a good Christian Prince would have to act against when going to war. While he does not specifically touch upon wars committed in the name of religion (though he was a devout Christian himself), it seems unlikely that he would agree to such a war as an exception to his rule.
He certainly did not think of it as a given issue - in a letter to Thomas More, he talks of a man giving a “zealous invitation to a holy war with the Turks… nothing is more childish than to handle a serious subject in a loose, wanton style.” It seems that, at the very least, he seems to feel that holy war was certainly not an issue over which the morality was clearly in its favour. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=551&chapter=104195&layout=html&Itemid=27
Under his general principles, thus, it seems unlikely that just holy wars could exist for Erasmus.
Aquinas
If we apply the rationale behind a holy war to Aquinas’ requirements for a war to be just, we can conclude as follows:
“First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.“
This is not a contentious issue with regard to holy wars: it will depend on the circumstance.
“Secondly, a just cause is required… when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
The question here is whether to go to war over the point of religion would, to Aquinas, be considered a just cause. Here, it is useful to consider Aquinas’ view on heretics: “…they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death… Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die.”
Here, we see that Aquinas certainly has no problems with the idea of executing those within his own state who threaten pure Christian beliefs. It is unclear, however, whether the logical extension of this is that a holy war in another state would be ‘just.’ Initiating a war on the basis of religion does not seem to fit comfortably within his suggestions for what might constitute a just reason for going to war. Defending against attacks based on religion, or retaliating against an act or sacrilege made by a ‘heretic’ religious group may well be a justification, but not necessarily on the basis of the heresy itself, so much as the wrongful acts against the state.
Then again, the meaning of “refusing to make amends for wrongs” could be construed to mean refusing to accept the Christian God – and would fit with Aquinas’ idea that such a heretic ought be condemned “not at once, but after the first and second admonition." It may be that refusing to give in to the attempts of the church to convert to Christianity may in fact provide a basis for going to holy war in order to “look to the salvation of others.”
“Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil…”
It can be assumed for the purposes here that Aquinas would believe a holy war to be committed with the utmost good intention.
It is therefore possible, and likely that Aquinas would justify some holy wars – particularly where the foe committed the first acts of hostility, and possibly even where they did not.
What is the main reason for the acceptance of war among Christians, according to Erasmus?
Incorporation of texts like Aristotle as theological to the point they become sacred: 'For if Christ has said anything that is not easily fitted to our way of life. it is permitted to interpret it differently; but anyone who dares oppose the oracular pronouncements of Aristotle is immediately hooted off the stage' (p225). Erasmus' particular contempt can be seen in the way he refers to Aristotle as 'oracular', people treat his writings as Christian despite the fact they were written in an 'unenlightened' time more than three centuries prior to Christ. Erasmus compares this to 'mixing water and fire' (p226), Christian writings are interpreted in order to fit them to old Roman institutions that while useful, allow the prosecution of war, usury, and other things clearly prohibited. On top of this, the writings produced to justify law often come from later times when the strength of the gospels was already 'weakening', the cases against war and prohibiting war in the bible are to Erasmus, 'innumerable'. Erasmus believes that people are often schooled in the classics as a precursor to the bible itself, leading to an immediate corruption of the values contained therein.
Is Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, compatible with Christianity, for Erasmus? How does his attitude to Greek philosophy compare to Aquinas's and Augustine's?
How is war different from "civil" violence, like legal punishment?
In war each side is prosecuting the other; and everyone is punished, predominantly those who have done no wrong - "peasants, old people, wives, orphans, young girls." The only profits of war tend to be enjoyed by those who perhaps do not deserve them - mercenaries, and selfish princes who create wars for unjust reasons. Even where genuine wrongdoing has occurred, it is better to let the few who have done wrong go than to punish innocent people.
On the other hand, a felon is punished for his actual wrong doing, such that society may be safer - war creates insecurity for society rather than safety.
Where do princes get their right to rule? How is this relevant to understanding whether or not princes can go to war?
The ideal prince has been given his authority by God, such that he, as a true Christian, has piety and ethical superiority over all other men. As such, he ought not be restrained by governmental checks such as statutes or parliamentary bodies, as he will understand the best course of action. (Education of a Christian Prince)
A prince therefore may be able to know when a war is just, as his ethical superiority, as directed by God, will ensure that it is not undergone lightly, and only where it is perfectly just, rather than other less desirable reasons.
The question is really whether a good Christian prince would consider undertaking war. Erasmus argues that the conclusion that ought be reached is that an unjust peace is better than a just war, as all war will result in the grievous crimes against the innocent. As a result it is better to allow some evil people to go unpunished than to punish innocent citizens. (Against War)
However, the ideal Christian prince does not often exist - Erasmus lambasts the "selfish princes" who "gravely imperil their whole realm" "for the sake of asserting their right of dominion over one small town." (Dulce Bellum Inexpertis)
Are there any circumstances in which war would be justified for Erasmus? Should one go to war for the sake of protecting one's country from destruction, for example?
In Dulce, Erasmus refuses to concede that war is ever justifiable - the only right and just conclusion that a prince ought reach is that it is better not to retaliate in war and live with an unjust peace than to even protect one's own state - as in the long run, for citizens, it results in less horror.
In Education of a Christian Prince, however, Erasmus does admit that circumstances may exist which leave a Prince with no alternative but to wage war. A prince who wages war, is therefore not always a bad prince. What is important is that the gravity of war cannot be underestimated, and the calamities weighed up in the conscience of a prince before such a decision is made. He places the moral weight of war directly on the prince who makes the decision. If he does decide to go to war, "the prince's main care should be to wage the war with as little calamity to his own people and as little shedding of Christian blood as may be, and to conclude the struggle as soon as possible."
Erasmus, however does not describe what circumstances may result in such a situation - leaving the reader in no doubt that this concession is limited indeed. He ends with a plea for princes not to take advantage of his concessions: "I will only urge princes of Christian faith to put aside all feigned excuses and all false pretexts and with wholehearted seriousness to work for the ending of that madness for war which has persisted so long and disgracefully among Christians, that among those whom so many ties unite there may arise a peace and concord."
It is therefore not clear whether self defence can ever, for Erasmus, be a just reason to retaliate. Erasmus does argue that an unjust peace preferable to a just war, but where lack of self defence may result in annihilation (rather than peace), he may have agreed that a war in this circumstance may be just. However, because he never gives examples of a moral war, it is difficult to be sure - and indeed, to instill unease may well have been his intention in doing so.
Explain the following key quotes by Erasmus, focusing on how they link to his argument against war as a whole. 'Better leave the wound alone if no surgery can be done without grave harm to the whole body.' This quote ties into Erasmus' principle that it is better to allow those who have offended (the wound) to go unpunished if to punish means harming the wider, innocent society (the whole body.)
As a result, it is better to have an unjust peace than a just war - as even in war waged for just reasons, unjustified crimes occur against innocent society that outweigh the benefits of punishing the few. 'Who except a lunatic would fish with a golden hook?'
Fernández, José A. "Erasmus on the Just War." Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 34, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1973), pp. 209-226. Link.
Shows that Erasmus did accept the possibility of just war, though not in his Dulce Bellum Inexpertis. Has a somewhat harsh assessment of the quality of Erasmus' thought.
Place some background information about Vitoria and his time here. Write things that may be helpful for understanding his thought. Please do not cut and paste from other websites.
Francisco Vitoria (1486-1546) was a Spanish Dominican. He was the founder of the tradition of philosophy known as the School of Salamanca, and is considered to be the 'father of international law.' Vitoria argued that the rights of soveriegns are derived from the universal laws governing that human community, and that the conduct of soveriegns must be judged by those laws.
His lecture 'On the American Indians' debates the legalities and entitlement of Spanish rule of the Native Americans, or 'barbarians' as Aristotle would say. The two main general aspects of his lecture are: ruling the Native Americans and spiritually 'guiding' them.
Vitoria's lecture attempts to legitimize Spanish imperialism, but he did not necessarily believe this to be legitimate himself.
The Background above states that Vitoria was "Famous for defending the native Indians that were subjected to harsh rule by the Spanish". Is this what Vitoria actually did? Would it not be more accurate to argue on the evidence of the set readings that Vitoria did very little for the rights of the Indians and that in reality his primary objective and substantial contribution was in fact to defend and legitimise Spanish imperialism?
Are native Americans natural slaves, for Vitoria? Why or why not?
No, the barbarians were not natural slaves. They had some degree of reason (Vitoria speaking), ordered societies, laws etc. They were also true masters. He does continue to say that the Natives are 'dull' and refers this to their education (not much different to rustic Spanish peasants.
Does Vitoria's interpretation of Aristotle seem accurate?
Does natural slavery provide grounds for subjecting the native Americans to the authority of the Spaniards?
What gives the Spaniards the right to rule the native Americans
It was argued that people who are in a state of mortal sin (the barbarians) did not have the right to rule over their land. The Spaniards were termed irrational, unbelieving and madmen. Other titles argued by Vitoria to justify the rule of the Spaniard include: that the emperor is master of the whole world, that the pope had supreme authority over the world, also claiming justification by virtue of discovery, by the voluntary acceptance of the natives and a title to the land by gift of God.
Are all of these titles endorsed by Vitoria?
No, the few titles that Vitoria endorses includes, that all men have the right to travel the world and to exchange and trade freely - as long as the native people are not unintentionally/intentionally harmed. The barbarians, Vitoria argues, must be allowed to trade with the Spaniards. This he makes clear by saying the following: “They may import the commodities which they lack, and export the gold, silver, or other things which they have in abundance”. Vitoria also claims that the Spaniard have a right to evangelize and Christianize the New World, protect new converts and also protect the innocent should they be endangered.
Are the travels of the Spaniards really "neither harmful nor detrimental to the barbarians [Americans]" as Vitoria assumes (3.1, p. 235)? How would his argument change on the contrary assumption? (E.g., mere travel by the Spaniards brings disease to the Americans)
After contact with Europeans, the traditional power structure of most indigenous societies was weakened. Is this not harmful then?
What is Vitoria's justification for free trade? Is this recommendation in accord with Spanish policy at the time?
Victoria believes that people should be allowed to interact with each other in any way that will mutually benefit them provided that the action does not harm the others. The right to free trade is one such action. He believes that people should be allowed to coexist for a bettering of the future. The Spanish seek to enslave the natives of Central America. They believe that it is there duty to evangelize to the natives. They justify there actions of cruelty and capturing on a single premise. The will of God! The Spanish clash with the "Mutual Benefit" principle that Victoria proposes. There argument is that they have other just causes, such as God on there side, that allow them overlook lesser principles.
Why is "restraint of trade" a just cause of war for Vitoria? Is he right about this?
The law of nations specifically dictates that trade cannot be impeded, and following proper discussion where the Spaniards are right in asserting this and the obstinate refusal of the other party, war can be justified.
Are there circumstances under which restraints of trade are justified, for Vitoria?
There is one circumstance that trade has a possibility of being justified with a restraint that Vitoria sees which is the protection of trade but this is just a potential justified title. In reality Vitoria is no means justified to restraints, there is the abuse of trade. This leads to unjust causes of war etc. Therefore Vitoria shows no real justified restraints on trade but only potential.
Would the USA, for example, be justified in going to war to enforce a decision of the WTO?
How does Vitoria understand a "just cause" of war between the Spaniards and the Americans? Are the Americans justified in attacking the Spaniards? Are the Spaniards justified in defending themselves?
Are the Spanish justified in conquering the Americans to secure themselves from attack? Would Augustine approve of Vitoria's advice on this point?
Is spreading the gospel a just cause of war for Vitoria? Why?
Yes, the evangelic mission of Christian in this era was pathological. Any impedance of the process could result in a just War, sanctioned by the Pontiff.
Consider the following case: Saudi Arabia prohibits all missionary activity, on the grounds that Islam is a true religion, and hence that one does harm to Muslims by exposing them to a mistaken religion. Is there a Vitorian case for war in these circumstances? Is there a case against war?According to Vitoria, war can be made against the Saudis since Christianity is the 'true faith'.
Is it possible to construct a Vitorian argument for just war on the basis of the "free spread of religion" that does not depend on assuming that Christianity is true? Would Vitoria think that "humanitarian intervention" is a just cause of war? How might Vitoria compare to Aquinas in this respect?
Is Vitoria right that there is a "humanitarian intervention" just cause for war? What if the natives disagree with the alleged harm?
Consider the following case: in the 18th century, widows were routinely burned in the funeral pyres of their husbands (sati or suttee). Would Vitoria say that stopping this practice is a just cause of war for the British?
How is that case different from, say, making war to prevent theft or fornication?
Is the "civilising" of the Americas a just cause of war for Vitoria?
Yes, considering civilising consists of evangelising and spreading the good word which is one of Vitoria's arguments.
Is Vitoria merely legitimating the Spanish conquest of the Americas (as Erasmus might have thought)? Or is he providing grounds for criticizing such conquest?
What are the justifications Vitoria offers to Europeans for possible war against the American Indians? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Vitoria's justifications? (Taken from Pols/Phil 2005 exam)
-Protection of universal right to trade with others
There are always going to be trade disputes (c.f. Bay of Islands 1840s NZ) which will need some authoritative mediation and the use of force. In the Native authority did not enforce any norms of trade, Spanish would be compelled to act.
-Protection of right to evangelise
Questioning by the Spanish of religious order in pre-Colombian society resulted in conflict and retaliation/vengeance. The Natives were officially declared to have souls in 1537, after publication of the papal bull - Sublimis Deus
-Protection of the converted
-Protection of the innocent against tyranny
-Genuine Voluntary choice
-Alliance with some natives against others
-Near madness of Natives
Weak at best,
Table of Contents
Schedule
- Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q 40; II-II, Q 64, articles 6-8, Q 11, article 3; pp. 213-220 in Brown et al (though question 40 is incomplete there, and question 11 is not found).
- ‘International relations in Christendom’, pp. 183-186 in Brown et al.
- First essay opportunity: Ancient conceptions of politics topics
Wednesday 6 AugustEssay Topics
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
General considerations
Aquinas
Table of Contents
Background
He died on his way to defend the papal cause at the Council of Lyon in 1274. He was later canonized in 1323.
In his life time he had great "intellectual authority" in the Church. To this day teachings of the Catholic Church are known as 'Thomism' In his philosophical writings he tried to combine and reconcile Aristotle's scientific rationalism with the Christian faith and the doctrine of revelation.
His two most famous works are The Summa contra Gentiles, which explored "natural religion" and Summa theologiae, which he did not complete.
http://www.allbiographies.com/biography-StThomasAquinas-1526.html
Readings
Summary
Study Questions
- What things are necessary for a war to be just?
- "The authority of the sovereign under whose command the war is to be waged." Private individuals ought not have the ability to declare war:
- Grievances of private individuals ought never be the justification for war - they have other forums in which such grievances can be redressed (eg tribunals)
- Private individuals do not have the ability to summon together the people, which is necessary in war time.
It is the job of ruling authorities to protect the well being of the state they have control over. In the same manner that these authorities use their power to enforce laws inside the state, they must be the ones to declare war against a foreign threat.- Would those conditions be present in contemporary cases (e.g., Iraq) according to Aquinas?
First requirement: "The authority of the sovereign under whose command the war is to be waged."There is some controversy over whether this requirement is met or not. The question revolves around who really was able to give authority to the US to go to Iraq:
It could be argued that the second condition is met because George W Bush had intelligence that confirmed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction Is this a fault deserving of punishment, in Aquinas' theory? Threat does not seem to be itself a fault -
The clarity of George W Bush intentions is debatable. Saddam Hussein was oppressing the majority and repressing all dissent using torture and murder. So it could be argued that he was coming to the aid of the oppressed and punishing the evil.
It is likely that in modern day cases that these conditions would be present. All modern day states have some sort of sovereign authority (or bound to a sovereign authority like the UN), so can fulfill this first requirement. However the likelihood that a just cause and right intention could even be conceived of is debatable. Such a morally charged question would be viewed as relative to different interest, peoples and states. However when a nation perceives of a just cause (as appeared to be the case post 9/11 in the war on terror) then that condition can be fulfilled.
- Are there any cases of "just war" in the modern world, if we follow Aquinas' criteria?
Aquinas' theory can justify many wars in theory, but in practice the implementation is not so clear-cut. His criteria lend themselves to broad interpretation, as all three principles (authority, cause and intention) lend themselves to endless debate. This is why Erasmus was critical of Aquinas' theory on the justification of war. He thought that because the definitions of a just war were too loose- then any war could be twisted to fit within those definitions. Thus a variety of modern war could be considered just depending on how loose we are with definitions. Two prominent examples are Iran and Sudan.An invasion of Iran would be justified by Aquinas if it were able to be shown that they truly posed an imminent threat to Middle-Eastern security Again, I'm not sure if "threat" really falls within the category of things that justify war, though I can be persuaded -
- Is the requirement of "just cause" identical with the idea that a country may only wage war in self-defense? * What would it mean for a belligerent to have a "rightful intention"? Is this condition of just war workable in modern circumstances?
A just cause is more than self defense. It is punishing a country for doing wrong. Examples? Note that this seems to conflict with things said above on the question of whether the Iraq war is just -A rightful intention means that one goes to war to advance good or avoid evil. How is this shown? How do we tell what the intention of the US, e.g., is in Iraq? -
- How does Aquinas reconcile war with the apparent teaching of the gospel? What would Erasmus say to this?
Aquinas uses a justification from St Augustine: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Luke 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."War, then, is justified in at least some instances, particularly where it is fought aimed at peace: "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace."
Where an unjust (or sinful) war is committed, Aquinas argues that the perpetrators comeuppance will come in the end, "because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword."
Erasmus, on the other hand, argues that the only conclusion a good Christian would arrive at would be not to go war, even where peace is the aim of war - for in the end, war leads only to more war, not to peace. On the contrary, an unjust peace is preferable to a just war.
Aquinas argues that their must exist peace in ones warring. I would interpret this to refer to the the idea that the Christian religion itself is peace, and that in war one should also be striving to bring that peace to others. Aquinas quotes the bible, "Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34)". Erasmus argues that even if peace is the objective of a war- any good Christian would realise that war is never just.
Aquinas believes that there are three principles to be observed in war. The first is the principle of the Innocent Immunity Citations - the principle is actually not quite found in Aquinas -
The second, clashing with the first, seems to be a loop hole in the rule you just set up. The Doctrine of Double Effect says that yes we should protect the innocent but sometimes innocent people die. As a soldier it is your job to not target civilians, but if the terrorists are being cowards and hiding behind the innocent then a bomb will kill both of them. So long as your intentions were to not harm the innocent, then you are safe and protected under this double doctrine.
The final and third principle is the Rule of Proportionality. This says that, yes, you should protect the innocent. Yes, you might kill innocent when laying down fire against the enemy. Do your ends balance out your means of acquiring those ends? This principle states that you should try to minimize the innocents you kill. Instead of dropping all of your bombs on the terrorists, who cower behind the innocent, you should drop only one....and it should be small. The problem that still arises from all of this is that these actions require morals on behalf of the soldiers and those in war. Whose intentions are we to trust? Not sure what the last question points to -
- Could Aquinas reconcile the idea that we ought not to kill innocent individuals with the fact that most soldiers in modern wars do not choose to go to war (but are rather drafted or coerced into war)? Are only "civilians" innocent in war, according to Aquinas?
- What is the doctrine of double effect? How does it apply in war? Is it found in Aquinas?
The doctrine of double effect is defined as an action taken in warfare when there is knowledge that the effect of such an action impacts on people uninvolved in such warfare. An example of such an action includes the killing of innocent people or non-combatants in an act of war. Such an action can be justified if the nature of the act is morally impartial, if the actor means good, or if the good effect outweighs the bad effect.This theory is applied in war when it is inevitable that civilians are harmed to weaken the enemy. It can be justified when the agent considers it advantageous to harm the enemy despite the possibility of harming civilians with the same action.
It is believed that Aquinas first thought of this doctrine of double effect. It emerges in his theory of 'Just War'. Citations -
- How could we apply the doctrine of double effect in modern warfare? Can an army, e.g., target an enemy that takes shelter behind civilians, for example? Can it use cluster munitions?
The doctrine of double effect would outlaw cluster munitions especially if those weapons were employed in predominantly civilian areas - southern Lebanese villages. Further explanation needed - why? -The doctrine of double effect can still be applied to modern warfare in much the same way it way applied in Aquinas' time. Because the DDE allows for non-combatant casualties to be sustained during warfare as long as they are not purposely targeted. If it was seen that targeting an enemy that takes shelter behind civilians would create proportionally more good than it would evil then it would be acceptable under the DDE. The same can be said for cluster munitions, as long as civilians are not being purposely targeted and more good would be achieved than evil.
- The Geneva Conventions on warfare explicitly oppose the targeting of civilians and does provide a modern guideline on how to wage war. Do Aquinas' just war concepts underlie the Geneva conventions?
Aquinas underlie similar concepts off just war to the Geneva Conventions. Aquinas shows that 'just war' has the principle that innocent have immunity. Innocent meaning civilians in the Geneva Convention. However, Aquinas then goes on to the fact that there are differences to the underlying message to 'just war', these are the doctrine of double effect (kill innocent, you get it back), and God determines the Justice of war not humans. So in theory Aquinas has a bit of both sides to the underlying 'just of war' that to the Geneva Convention.Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
Erasmus
Table of Contents
Background
Many of his writings used humor and satire to convey his opinions on religion and society. He also pushed for the Bible to be translated into local languages so that more people could access it's teachings. It is said that Erasmus was very liberal for his time and had quite modern views for instance; he felt that women should be educated and minorities accepted. He is said to be one of the first Westen pacifists and was more or less opposed to war. While he criticized the Catholic church he still believed in the Catholic idea of Free Will and so, although Protestant Reformers of the time looked to him as a critic of the Church, they were not pleased by his continuing belief in Free Will as it was in direct opposition to the Protestant view of predestination.
http://www.erasmatazz.com/
Readings
Summary
With astonishment Erasmus acknowledges that “everywhere at the present time war is being entered upon lightly, for any kind of reason…” (p.222) not by young and inexperienced, but by old who know it well, not “only by lay people but by priest and bishops”, not by common people but rather by princes. Erasmus complains about the fact, that men, “a peaceful creature, whom nature made for peace and loving-kindness, should rush with such savage insanity, with much mad commotion, to mutual slaughter” (p.222).
Erasmus then goes on and tries to explain the historic reasons for men for the act of killing. He thinks hunters in pre-history who killed animals, where the “first murders”. He writes that over time through killing/hunting several animals (first harmful beasts, then harmless, then sheep, domestic ox, birds, fish…) men got used of the act of killing and hunting had given men the skills for killing, which they - at one time used - to kill other men, first one against one, “then people began to band themselves together, according to kinship, neighbourhood, or friendly alliance” (p.223), and invented arms to make wars (“bellum”). This foul evolution went on to the point that “we are continually at war, race against race, kingdom against kingdom, prince against prince…and at this very worst of all, Christians fight Christians” (pp. 224-225). Erasmus complains that no one is astonished and he adds that the worst of all is that both sides in a war often argue that they act in the name of the Christ.
Erasmus tries to argue how this evolution among Christians could happen. In his opinion the main reason is a gradual estrangement of the church from the original doctrines of Christ (including the acceptance of Aristotle as an integral part of theology). He specifies the different aberrations in the church (taking over the Roman law, misunderstandings of the later writings in the Gospel, injustice, acceptance of different “trivial” reasons to approve wars…).
Study Questions
- What does Erasmus think about just war reasoning as practiced by people like Aquinas?
Codified principles of just war such as those that Aquinas offers, don't necessarily lead to fewer wars being fought more fairly. Instead, it gives individuals the tools to rationalise their actions, both in deciding to go war and in the conduct of the war. A prince 'can buy their justification' from any number of sophistic lawyers and theologians. Even though there may in fact be just wars, attempting to elaborate what exactly constitutes one simply will allow any number of unjust wars to be perpetrated in apparent adherence to these principles.Erasmus' project is more rhetorical. By vehemently presenting the horrors and dehumanising effects of war, he hopes to prime our intuitions such that we instinctively have a revulsion to organised violence. If humanity adopts the view that war is bad by default, then this will be a more effective way to reduce the amount of warfare, if that is indeed our goal.
- How does Erasmus' view of man compare with Augustine's?
- Why does meat eating lead necessarily to war, according to Erasmus?
According to Erasmus, 'Vice [violence] is like the sea, we have the power to shut it out altogether, but once we let it in, there are few of us that can impose a limit'. Erasmus identifies the killing of animals as the initial factor giving rise to the temptation for men to begin killing other men. Slaughtering animals for meat gave men practice in killing and led them to discover that other men could be killed as easily. Furthermore, men were more likely to use deadly force when they became upset with another man if they have conditioned themselves to killing animals who offer no provocation. This leads to a slippery slope effect where the level of violence continues to escalate; men fashion arms to kill more effectively, band together to attack other bands, eventually leading to entire communities at 'war'.- What is the point of the argument about animals in Erasmus' presentation?
One of the reasons Erasmus uses animals is as a metaphor for innocent civilians - creating links through using similar language - e.g. "committed no other crime than to be eatable" p223 (cf, "innocent people who have done no wrong") p227 ; domestic ox who "kept the ungrateful family for so long with its labours" p223 (cf. "peasants" - who carry out the same function in society p227). If it is wrong to kill innocent animals, it flows on that the same or similar arguments apply to innocent human beings.Moreover, Erasmus uses animals as the 'step' just below humans, showing the ease with which moral and ethical standards can change. If "habit" can make it "possible...not to see the savagery" of such treatment of innocent animals, where it was once considered to be an evil, the same can apply to human beings. "Little by little...evil... f[inds] acceptance with the heedless." p225
- What is the fundamental problem with war?
- Is Erasmus' wrath directed only at aggressive war, or does he condemn too wars undertaken for the sake of defending one's country?
- Does Erasmus' pacifism leave "appeasement" as the only option available to a "prince"? Is Erasmus naive?
- Can "holy wars" exist for Erasmus? How does he compare to Aquinas on this point (see, e.g., Summa Theologica II-II.11.3, II-II.40.2)?
ErasmusIt is unlikely that Erasmus would accept the idea of a ‘holy war’ as a just war, particularly given that under his ethic, a good Christian people (and Prince) would choose to be ruled unjustly than to defend themselves. As a result, it is unlikely he would condone a war committed to defend the very principles a good Christian Prince would have to act against when going to war. While he does not specifically touch upon wars committed in the name of religion (though he was a devout Christian himself), it seems unlikely that he would agree to such a war as an exception to his rule.
He certainly did not think of it as a given issue - in a letter to Thomas More, he talks of a man giving a “zealous invitation to a holy war with the Turks… nothing is more childish than to handle a serious subject in a loose, wanton style.” It seems that, at the very least, he seems to feel that holy war was certainly not an issue over which the morality was clearly in its favour.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=551&chapter=104195&layout=html&Itemid=27
Under his general principles, thus, it seems unlikely that just holy wars could exist for Erasmus.
Aquinas
If we apply the rationale behind a holy war to Aquinas’ requirements for a war to be just, we can conclude as follows:
“First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.“
This is not a contentious issue with regard to holy wars: it will depend on the circumstance.
“Secondly, a just cause is required… when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
The question here is whether to go to war over the point of religion would, to Aquinas, be considered a just cause. Here, it is useful to consider Aquinas’ view on heretics:
“…they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death… Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die.”
Here, we see that Aquinas certainly has no problems with the idea of executing those within his own state who threaten pure Christian beliefs. It is unclear, however, whether the logical extension of this is that a holy war in another state would be ‘just.’ Initiating a war on the basis of religion does not seem to fit comfortably within his suggestions for what might constitute a just reason for going to war. Defending against attacks based on religion, or retaliating against an act or sacrilege made by a ‘heretic’ religious group may well be a justification, but not necessarily on the basis of the heresy itself, so much as the wrongful acts against the state.
Then again, the meaning of “refusing to make amends for wrongs” could be construed to mean refusing to accept the Christian God – and would fit with Aquinas’ idea that such a heretic ought be condemned “not at once, but after the first and second admonition." It may be that refusing to give in to the attempts of the church to convert to Christianity may in fact provide a basis for going to holy war in order to “look to the salvation of others.”
“Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil…”
It can be assumed for the purposes here that Aquinas would believe a holy war to be committed with the utmost good intention.
It is therefore possible, and likely that Aquinas would justify some holy wars – particularly where the foe committed the first acts of hostility, and possibly even where they did not.
- What is the main reason for the acceptance of war among Christians, according to Erasmus?
Incorporation of texts like Aristotle as theological to the point they become sacred: 'For if Christ has said anything that is not easily fitted to our way of life. it is permitted to interpret it differently; but anyone who dares oppose the oracular pronouncements of Aristotle is immediately hooted off the stage' (p225). Erasmus' particular contempt can be seen in the way he refers to Aristotle as 'oracular', people treat his writings as Christian despite the fact they were written in an 'unenlightened' time more than three centuries prior to Christ. Erasmus compares this to 'mixing water and fire' (p226), Christian writings are interpreted in order to fit them to old Roman institutions that while useful, allow the prosecution of war, usury, and other things clearly prohibited. On top of this, the writings produced to justify law often come from later times when the strength of the gospels was already 'weakening', the cases against war and prohibiting war in the bible are to Erasmus, 'innumerable'. Erasmus believes that people are often schooled in the classics as a precursor to the bible itself, leading to an immediate corruption of the values contained therein.- Is Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, compatible with Christianity, for Erasmus? How does his attitude to Greek philosophy compare to Aquinas's and Augustine's?
- How is war different from "civil" violence, like legal punishment?
In war each side is prosecuting the other; and everyone is punished, predominantly those who have done no wrong - "peasants, old people, wives, orphans, young girls." The only profits of war tend to be enjoyed by those who perhaps do not deserve them - mercenaries, and selfish princes who create wars for unjust reasons. Even where genuine wrongdoing has occurred, it is better to let the few who have done wrong go than to punish innocent people.On the other hand, a felon is punished for his actual wrong doing, such that society may be safer - war creates insecurity for society rather than safety.
- Where do princes get their right to rule? How is this relevant to understanding whether or not princes can go to war?
The ideal prince has been given his authority by God, such that he, as a true Christian, has piety and ethical superiority over all other men. As such, he ought not be restrained by governmental checks such as statutes or parliamentary bodies, as he will understand the best course of action. (Education of a Christian Prince)A prince therefore may be able to know when a war is just, as his ethical superiority, as directed by God, will ensure that it is not undergone lightly, and only where it is perfectly just, rather than other less desirable reasons.
The question is really whether a good Christian prince would consider undertaking war. Erasmus argues that the conclusion that ought be reached is that an unjust peace is better than a just war, as all war will result in the grievous crimes against the innocent. As a result it is better to allow some evil people to go unpunished than to punish innocent citizens. (Against War)
However, the ideal Christian prince does not often exist - Erasmus lambasts the "selfish princes" who "gravely imperil their whole realm" "for the sake of asserting their right of dominion over one small town." (Dulce Bellum Inexpertis)
- Are there any circumstances in which war would be justified for Erasmus? Should one go to war for the sake of protecting one's country from destruction, for example?
In Dulce, Erasmus refuses to concede that war is ever justifiable - the only right and just conclusion that a prince ought reach is that it is better not to retaliate in war and live with an unjust peace than to even protect one's own state - as in the long run, for citizens, it results in less horror.In Education of a Christian Prince, however, Erasmus does admit that circumstances may exist which leave a Prince with no alternative but to wage war. A prince who wages war, is therefore not always a bad prince. What is important is that the gravity of war cannot be underestimated, and the calamities weighed up in the conscience of a prince before such a decision is made. He places the moral weight of war directly on the prince who makes the decision. If he does decide to go to war, "the prince's main care should be to wage the war with as little calamity to his own people and as little shedding of Christian blood as may be, and to conclude the struggle as soon as possible."
Erasmus, however does not describe what circumstances may result in such a situation - leaving the reader in no doubt that this concession is limited indeed. He ends with a plea for princes not to take advantage of his concessions: "I will only urge princes of Christian faith to put aside all feigned excuses and all false pretexts and with wholehearted seriousness to work for the ending of that madness for war which has persisted so long and disgracefully among Christians, that among those whom so many ties unite there may arise a peace and concord."
It is therefore not clear whether self defence can ever, for Erasmus, be a just reason to retaliate. Erasmus does argue that an unjust peace preferable to a just war, but where lack of self defence may result in annihilation (rather than peace), he may have agreed that a war in this circumstance may be just. However, because he never gives examples of a moral war, it is difficult to be sure - and indeed, to instill unease may well have been his intention in doing so.
'Better leave the wound alone if no surgery can be done without grave harm to the whole body.' This quote ties into Erasmus' principle that it is better to allow those who have offended (the wound) to go unpunished if to punish means harming the wider, innocent society (the whole body.)
As a result, it is better to have an unjust peace than a just war - as even in war waged for just reasons, unjustified crimes occur against innocent society that outweigh the benefits of punishing the few.
'Who except a lunatic would fish with a golden hook?'
Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
- Fernández, José A. "Erasmus on the Just War." Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 34, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1973), pp. 209-226. Link.
Shows that Erasmus did accept the possibility of just war, though not in his Dulce Bellum Inexpertis. Has a somewhat harsh assessment of the quality of Erasmus' thought.Vitoria
Table of Contents
Background
Francisco Vitoria (1486-1546) was a Spanish Dominican. He was the founder of the tradition of philosophy known as the School of Salamanca, and is considered to be the 'father of international law.' Vitoria argued that the rights of soveriegns are derived from the universal laws governing that human community, and that the conduct of soveriegns must be judged by those laws.
His lecture 'On the American Indians' debates the legalities and entitlement of Spanish rule of the Native Americans, or 'barbarians' as Aristotle would say. The two main general aspects of his lecture are: ruling the Native Americans and spiritually 'guiding' them.
Vitoria's lecture attempts to legitimize Spanish imperialism, but he did not necessarily believe this to be legitimate himself.
Readings
Summary
Study Questions
- The Background above states that Vitoria was "Famous for defending the native Indians that were subjected to harsh rule by the Spanish". Is this what Vitoria actually did? Would it not be more accurate to argue on the evidence of the set readings that Vitoria did very little for the rights of the Indians and that in reality his primary objective and substantial contribution was in fact to defend and legitimise Spanish imperialism?
- Are native Americans natural slaves, for Vitoria? Why or why not?
No, the barbarians were not natural slaves. They had some degree of reason (Vitoria speaking), ordered societies, laws etc. They were also true masters. He does continue to say that the Natives are 'dull' and refers this to their education (not much different to rustic Spanish peasants.- Does Vitoria's interpretation of Aristotle seem accurate?
- Does natural slavery provide grounds for subjecting the native Americans to the authority of the Spaniards?
- What gives the Spaniards the right to rule the native Americans
It was argued that people who are in a state of mortal sin (the barbarians) did not have the right to rule over their land. The Spaniards were termed irrational, unbelieving and madmen. Other titles argued by Vitoria to justify the rule of the Spaniard include: that the emperor is master of the whole world, that the pope had supreme authority over the world, also claiming justification by virtue of discovery, by the voluntary acceptance of the natives and a title to the land by gift of God.- Are all of these titles endorsed by Vitoria?
No, the few titles that Vitoria endorses includes, that all men have the right to travel the world and to exchange and trade freely - as long as the native people are not unintentionally/intentionally harmed. The barbarians, Vitoria argues, must be allowed to trade with the Spaniards. This he makes clear by saying the following: “They may import the commodities which they lack, and export the gold, silver, or other things which they have in abundance”. Vitoria also claims that the Spaniard have a right to evangelize and Christianize the New World, protect new converts and also protect the innocent should they be endangered.- Are the travels of the Spaniards really "neither harmful nor detrimental to the barbarians [Americans]" as Vitoria assumes (3.1, p. 235)? How would his argument change on the contrary assumption? (E.g., mere travel by the Spaniards brings disease to the Americans)
After contact with Europeans, the traditional power structure of most indigenous societies was weakened. Is this not harmful then?- What is Vitoria's justification for free trade? Is this recommendation in accord with Spanish policy at the time?
Victoria believes that people should be allowed to interact with each other in any way that will mutually benefit them provided that the action does not harm the others. The right to free trade is one such action. He believes that people should be allowed to coexist for a bettering of the future. The Spanish seek to enslave the natives of Central America. They believe that it is there duty to evangelize to the natives. They justify there actions of cruelty and capturing on a single premise. The will of God! The Spanish clash with the "Mutual Benefit" principle that Victoria proposes. There argument is that they have other just causes, such as God on there side, that allow them overlook lesser principles.- Why is "restraint of trade" a just cause of war for Vitoria? Is he right about this?
The law of nations specifically dictates that trade cannot be impeded, and following proper discussion where the Spaniards are right in asserting this and the obstinate refusal of the other party, war can be justified.- Are there circumstances under which restraints of trade are justified, for Vitoria?
There is one circumstance that trade has a possibility of being justified with a restraint that Vitoria sees which is the protection of trade but this is just a potential justified title. In reality Vitoria is no means justified to restraints, there is the abuse of trade. This leads to unjust causes of war etc. Therefore Vitoria shows no real justified restraints on trade but only potential.- Would the USA, for example, be justified in going to war to enforce a decision of the WTO?
- How does Vitoria understand a "just cause" of war between the Spaniards and the Americans? Are the Americans justified in attacking the Spaniards? Are the Spaniards justified in defending themselves?
- Are the Spanish justified in conquering the Americans to secure themselves from attack? Would Augustine approve of Vitoria's advice on this point?
- Is spreading the gospel a just cause of war for Vitoria? Why?
Yes, the evangelic mission of Christian in this era was pathological. Any impedance of the process could result in a just War, sanctioned by the Pontiff.- Consider the following case: Saudi Arabia prohibits all missionary activity, on the grounds that Islam is a true religion, and hence that one does harm to Muslims by exposing them to a mistaken religion. Is there a Vitorian case for war in these circumstances? Is there a case against war?According to Vitoria, war can be made against the Saudis since Christianity is the 'true faith'.
- Is it possible to construct a Vitorian argument for just war on the basis of the "free spread of religion" that does not depend on assuming that Christianity is true? Would Vitoria think that "humanitarian intervention" is a just cause of war? How might Vitoria compare to Aquinas in this respect?
- Is Vitoria right that there is a "humanitarian intervention" just cause for war? What if the natives disagree with the alleged harm?
- Consider the following case: in the 18th century, widows were routinely burned in the funeral pyres of their husbands (sati or suttee). Would Vitoria say that stopping this practice is a just cause of war for the British?
- How is that case different from, say, making war to prevent theft or fornication?
- Is the "civilising" of the Americas a just cause of war for Vitoria?
Yes, considering civilising consists of evangelising and spreading the good word which is one of Vitoria's arguments.- Is Vitoria merely legitimating the Spanish conquest of the Americas (as Erasmus might have thought)? Or is he providing grounds for criticizing such conquest?
- What are the justifications Vitoria offers to Europeans for possible war against the American Indians? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Vitoria's justifications? (Taken from Pols/Phil 2005 exam)
-Protection of universal right to trade with othersThere are always going to be trade disputes (c.f. Bay of Islands 1840s NZ) which will need some authoritative mediation and the use of force. In the Native authority did not enforce any norms of trade, Spanish would be compelled to act.
-Protection of right to evangelise
Questioning by the Spanish of religious order in pre-Colombian society resulted in conflict and retaliation/vengeance. The Natives were officially declared to have souls in 1537, after publication of the papal bull - Sublimis Deus
-Protection of the converted
-Protection of the innocent against tyranny
-Genuine Voluntary choice
-Alliance with some natives against others
-Near madness of Natives
Weak at best,
Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
Other thinkers